Approach Ban
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Denti, it's got nothing to do with LBA but with your specs. If you're fail passive on 737 or no auto roll out system installed then all 3 RVRs are mandatory at any point and there's no approach ban coz it's about you being able to perform a manual roll out. Airbus however is fail operational therefore it's a matter of reliability of automation only consequently approach ban applies. 75 meters are only there to be able to taxi that's it. 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, the 737 of course has auto rollout and a fail operational system, we also have airbus fleets and the restriction above apply to all of them (OM A restriction). Without it we wouldn't get our AOC, so it is enforced by the LBA.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear you Denti, you gotta follow whatever your manual says. However that's not the EU OPS valid concept but your OPS specs imposed by your authority for some reasons. We are talking about EU OPS approach ban concept here and it's applicable to any approach including CAT III b.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can any of you guys put a link to the EUOPS where this issue is laid down?
And (this is to the veterans) Does anyone know the history of the approach ban concept?
I would say the approach ban concept is avoiding the danger that means airplanes flying approaches with very low probability of success and a not so low probability of "temptation to fly just a little bit below minimum". If the event that RVR goes below minima after a given point in final, then you can wait till the DH to discontinue the approach.
With no DH, if you can only continue and land, even in zero zero RVR. Why don't they just establish CAT IIIC?
Besides, if you land with nearly zero RVR, you will have to wait in the runway centerline until RVR increases. No one else can shoot that approach after you, in the mean time.
And (this is to the veterans) Does anyone know the history of the approach ban concept?
I would say the approach ban concept is avoiding the danger that means airplanes flying approaches with very low probability of success and a not so low probability of "temptation to fly just a little bit below minimum". If the event that RVR goes below minima after a given point in final, then you can wait till the DH to discontinue the approach.
With no DH, if you can only continue and land, even in zero zero RVR. Why don't they just establish CAT IIIC?
Besides, if you land with nearly zero RVR, you will have to wait in the runway centerline until RVR increases. No one else can shoot that approach after you, in the mean time.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Direct extract from the section EU Ops:
OPS 1.405
Commencement and continuation of approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegat ed may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the r eported visibility in accordance with Appendix 1 t o O PS 1.430, subparagraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position in accordanc e with (a) above, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may b e continued to DA/H or MDA/ H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent position exists, the commander or t he pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make the decision to continue or abandon the approach before descending below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome o n the final approach segment. If the MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height, for each approach procedure, below which the app roach shall not be continued if RVR/visibility is less than applicable minima.
(e) The approach may b e continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may b e c ompleted provided that the required visual reference is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.
(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always controlling. If reported and relevan t, the mid point and stop end RVR are also controlling. The minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m o r the RVR requ ired for the touch-down zone if less, and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped with a roll-out guidance or control system, the minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.
Note: ‘Relevant’, in this context, means t hat p art of the runway used during t he h igh speed phase of the landing d own to a s peed of approximately 60 knots.
OPS 1.405
Commencement and continuation of approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegat ed may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the r eported visibility in accordance with Appendix 1 t o O PS 1.430, subparagraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position in accordanc e with (a) above, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may b e continued to DA/H or MDA/ H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent position exists, the commander or t he pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make the decision to continue or abandon the approach before descending below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome o n the final approach segment. If the MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height, for each approach procedure, below which the app roach shall not be continued if RVR/visibility is less than applicable minima.
(e) The approach may b e continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may b e c ompleted provided that the required visual reference is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.
(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always controlling. If reported and relevan t, the mid point and stop end RVR are also controlling. The minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m o r the RVR requ ired for the touch-down zone if less, and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped with a roll-out guidance or control system, the minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.
Note: ‘Relevant’, in this context, means t hat p art of the runway used during t he h igh speed phase of the landing d own to a s peed of approximately 60 knots.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
torque2 nailed it.
Kijangnim, no idea why you're shocked since FAA has got exactly the same procedure in place. The only difference is that to commence the approach PIC needs 3 RVR equal to 75 m. Once FAF has been passed it's a go as well regardless of the reported RVR.
Kijangnim, no idea why you're shocked since FAA has got exactly the same procedure in place. The only difference is that to commence the approach PIC needs 3 RVR equal to 75 m. Once FAF has been passed it's a go as well regardless of the reported RVR.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position in accordanc e with (a) above, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/ H.
Point f) is seen as a fixed requirement of 3 (or 4 if you have two midsection readings like MUC for example) RVR readings of at least 75m if they are relevant, ie as long as they are within the landing distance required which of course has to be calculated before starting the approach. If you have no automatic rollout system (older 737s for example) you need even higher readings.
This is the problem though, at least with the LBA and CAT IIIb with no decision height. As there is no decision height you may not continue, if there is one, you may as it gives time for a go/no-go decision. Especially in consideration of point e).
Under the ones I operate to, you can continue.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Torque
If follows that the approach ban is necessarily associated to a DH (or MDA in NPAs).
NoDH means No Approach Ban point.
If there is no DH you cannot use the approach ban point as a "cleared for anything you want beyond here" point. That would go against safety, I think.
Anyhow, when are they going to invent some fog goggles or something so we can just land normally no matter what is whe visibility? Don't the military guys have something like that yet? all this AWO is quite complicated.
Also it would be nice to have those x-ray vision glasses that you can use to see women underwear, but that is another story
If follows that the approach ban is necessarily associated to a DH (or MDA in NPAs).
NoDH means No Approach Ban point.
If there is no DH you cannot use the approach ban point as a "cleared for anything you want beyond here" point. That would go against safety, I think.
Anyhow, when are they going to invent some fog goggles or something so we can just land normally no matter what is whe visibility? Don't the military guys have something like that yet? all this AWO is quite complicated.
Also it would be nice to have those x-ray vision glasses that you can use to see women underwear, but that is another story
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Denti, may I suggest you re-read your manual carefully again. It's plain simple, for CAT III A&B with DH approach two RVR reading are mandatory TDZ & MID. In case auto roll out is performed MID RVR can be 75 m whereas TDZ must be 200 m in order to acquire visual cues for CAT III A 3 lights and for CAT III B 1 light. CAT III B with NO DH no need to see anything thus only TDZ RVR 75 is required which can be substituted by MID, rollout RVR has NO effect whatsoever. Have a look at the table 6a for failed or downgraded equipment for AWO. EU OPS.
For CAT IIIB operations with no DH, an operator shall ensure that, for aeroplanes authorised to conduct no DH operations with the lowest RVR limitations, the following applies in addition to the content of Table 6a:
RVR At least one RVR value must be available at the aerodrome.
P.S. once again the thread is about the approach BAN it's applicable as per country's regulation and OPS specs of the operator. EU OPS approach ban is applicable to any approach.
For CAT IIIB operations with no DH, an operator shall ensure that, for aeroplanes authorised to conduct no DH operations with the lowest RVR limitations, the following applies in addition to the content of Table 6a:
RVR At least one RVR value must be available at the aerodrome.
P.S. once again the thread is about the approach BAN it's applicable as per country's regulation and OPS specs of the operator. EU OPS approach ban is applicable to any approach.
Last edited by 9.G; 13th Mar 2011 at 17:50.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Micro you are allowed to continue provided the rvr is greater than 75, beyond that point you can continue to the DH aand NoDH is valid. Provided the aircraft does not downgrade the landing category all is valid.
In Canada, for example, the requirement is to discontinue the approach if the rvr goes below minima even after the ABP, not so in EASA land.
The airport has to be equipped to Cat IIIB standard for No DH, as far as I am aware there are none in Canada and a very few in the US (Seattle being one of course, reqd for Boeing testing and certification I believe but stand to be corrected.)
There is no interpretation required, those are the rules as certified if you operate under EASA.
In Canada, for example, the requirement is to discontinue the approach if the rvr goes below minima even after the ABP, not so in EASA land.
The airport has to be equipped to Cat IIIB standard for No DH, as far as I am aware there are none in Canada and a very few in the US (Seattle being one of course, reqd for Boeing testing and certification I believe but stand to be corrected.)
There is no interpretation required, those are the rules as certified if you operate under EASA.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position in accordanc e with (a) above, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may b e continued to DA/H or MDA/ H.
It's written. Maybe continued to DA/H. If there is no DH, the approach ban has no sense. Or its sense is like James Bonds and other double zero: a license to kill.
It's written. Maybe continued to DA/H. If there is no DH, the approach ban has no sense. Or its sense is like James Bonds and other double zero: a license to kill.
How is allowing the aircrat to Autoland a license to kill? the required vis in CatIIIB is only there for turn-off, taxi anyway.
I'm sorry if you don't like the Regs- We're just telling you what they are.
I'm sorry if you don't like the Regs- We're just telling you what they are.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agree I exagerate
but if there is no DH you cannot continue to DH in the hope that REQUIRED rvr is attained. So the approach ban cant be applied.
the text says clearly that you may continue to DH. No mention of the no DH case. In other countries they make it very clear that. In EUOPs is not so clear.
It all comes to this question
"can you land with rvr 0/0/0, knowing that that is the rvr?"
if answer is affirm: why the 75m requirement?
if taxi and fire brigade are the reasons: Why do you disregard those reasons after passing the approach ban?
but if there is no DH you cannot continue to DH in the hope that REQUIRED rvr is attained. So the approach ban cant be applied.
the text says clearly that you may continue to DH. No mention of the no DH case. In other countries they make it very clear that. In EUOPs is not so clear.
It all comes to this question
"can you land with rvr 0/0/0, knowing that that is the rvr?"
if answer is affirm: why the 75m requirement?
if taxi and fire brigade are the reasons: Why do you disregard those reasons after passing the approach ban?
Microburst,
That's the same as saying, "If, after you pass the ABP, the reported vis goes below the minimum, can you land if you have visual reference at the DH" The answer is of course, yes you can.
In the same way, if the vis goes below minimum after ABP on a CatIIIb, you can land.
There are minimum RVR values, and then minimum visual reference criteria for each catagory of approach, except CatIIIb which basically has no visual reference criteria, you just let it land!!
That's the same as saying, "If, after you pass the ABP, the reported vis goes below the minimum, can you land if you have visual reference at the DH" The answer is of course, yes you can.
In the same way, if the vis goes below minimum after ABP on a CatIIIb, you can land.
There are minimum RVR values, and then minimum visual reference criteria for each catagory of approach, except CatIIIb which basically has no visual reference criteria, you just let it land!!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see your point, but i am afraid I still think that it is not right to land in a runway with less than the required RVR, even if there are no visual cues required to land and the AFS can do it very well in zero visibility.
The 75 meters are required for a reason, and I think that this reason is still valid after the approach ban. And so they think in other regulations, it seems.
I am too stubborn, sometimes, I know
Anyway, I will probably retire without ever having had this case. And without having enjoyed the x-ray underwear scanning glasses
The 75 meters are required for a reason, and I think that this reason is still valid after the approach ban. And so they think in other regulations, it seems.
I am too stubborn, sometimes, I know
Anyway, I will probably retire without ever having had this case. And without having enjoyed the x-ray underwear scanning glasses
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M2002, all other regulations except Canucks have implemented APB. It's the whole purpose of a ABP to give the PIC the chance to assess the dynamic of the situation. The idea of a AB is that an approach can be started regardless of WX, approaching the ABP a go around must be performed in case there isn't a improvement. Once beyond however it's a matter of getting to see at MDA/DA whether a landing can or can't be accomplished safely. ON CAT III B there's nothing to see anyways thus it becomes a redundancy matter. Speculations about emergencies in LVO, might bear grounds as much as the odds of probability. Ask yourself a question would you rather land having an engine fire on CAT IIIB on short final on go around? I think you know the answer.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The frozen north
Age: 43
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read EU OPS1 Subpart E 1.405
Commencement and continuation of approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated may commence an instrument approach
regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
Commencement and continuation of approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated may commence an instrument approach
regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
